Teen Pregnancy Drops as Planned Parenthood Vanishes

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
321

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I would think my law would be a more natural law. Infanticide has always been around and I will not judge another for deeming it best not to bring a child into their circumstances
[/quote]

I don’t care if you do or don’t judge someone.

Let’s talk about how silly of an abortion rationale this is:

  1. people have always polluted the area around them, no need to judge people that don’t care fi there is clean drinking water

  2. war has always been around, and I don’t judge those who drone strike American citizens without due process. Certainly don’t judge those that kill non-combatants.

  3. Unfair incarceration has always been around, I don’t judge those that support the War on Drugs

  4. Slavery has always been around, I don’t judge the democrats for fighting for it

  5. Segregation is rampant in the natural world, I don’t judge the democrats for making balcks drink from separate fountains.

No one cares who you judge. We’re trying to determine who is or isn’t a valuable life to you and worth “being allowed to live”.

322

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

But if you value all life, how can you condone the ending of human life in the certain particular instances you do?]

[/quote]

because it is not the life of the child until viability . It’s life is at the will of the mother and not my decision
[/quote]

Please post a doctor or any sort of scientist paper that backs up this nonsense. So until week 20 is it magic fairy dust that causes the growth of the fetus if not life?

wtf?[/quote]

I’m curious, what makes a “life” valuable to you? I doubt the response is “all life is equally valuable” because your toenails and hair are technically alive and part of you and I’m assuming you don’t have a problem “killing” or “ending” life that is non-essential to the whole.

Does being sentient play a role with valuing life? If a baby is alive and will be born alive but brain-wave dead and non sentient is this “life” worth the same as a baby that would be born sentient and functional? Is it ok to terminate the life of a brain-dead baby? Is it morally ok to view one of these live beings as worth less than the other? I think it is, but I’d like to hear your thoughts.

How about, hypothetically, you are a fire-fighter going into a hospital that is burning and there is a person who is brain dead and on life support in the same room as a person who’s brain is functioning but is disabled. You can only save one of them. Which one do you pick? Is it morally acceptable to make a choice by valuing one of these lives more than the another? Is there any circumstance under which you save the brain-dead patient and feel like you made the right choice? I say no, you pick the non-brain-dead person every single time and feel like you made the right choice.

Pat raised the point that how you “feel” about something doesn’t change what it is and the fact of “what it is” is important. At what point does a fetus become sentient (and I truly don’t know the answer to this)?. Before it becomes sentient–i.e. when it only has the potential to become sentient–it isn’t sentient. Is this an important distinction? I think it is.

I personally agree that a first-trimester or earlier baby is “alive,” but I am not convinced it is “sentient” and similarly situated to a sentient being even if it has the potential to become sentient in the future.

323

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What about this falls under natural law?[/quote]

Pretty sure the slicing open of the skull and vacuuming out of the brain is the most natural occurrence on Earth.

The plastic bags they put the remains in are mined in the hills of Northern California…

324

[quote]Pat raised the point that how you “feel” about something doesn’t change what it is and the fact of “what it is” is important. At what point does a fetus become sentient (and I truly don’t know the answer to this)?. Before it becomes sentient–i.e. when it only has the potential to become sentient–it isn’t sentient. Is this an important distinction? I think it is.

I personally agree that a first-trimester or earlier baby is “alive,” but I am not convinced it is “sentient” and similarly situated to a sentient being even if it has the potential to become sentient in the future.[/quote]

Sentience can’t be a criterium here.
Or, more accurately, if it was a criterium, we should legalize the homicide of comatose and unconscious people too.
And maybe the homicide of sleeping people, depending on your definition of sentience.

It seems that each time we try to find a criterium to justify abortion, we end up with something that could justify other homicides.
Which should tell us something.

325

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Pat raised the point that how you “feel” about something doesn’t change what it is and the fact of “what it is” is important. At what point does a fetus become sentient (and I truly don’t know the answer to this)?. Before it becomes sentient–i.e. when it only has the potential to become sentient–it isn’t sentient. Is this an important distinction? I think it is.

I personally agree that a first-trimester or earlier baby is “alive,” but I am not convinced it is “sentient” and similarly situated to a sentient being even if it has the potential to become sentient in the future.[/quote]

Sentience can’t be a criterium here.
Or, more accurately, if it was a criterium, we should legalize the homicide of comatose and unconscious people too.
And maybe the homicide of sleeping people, depending on your definition of sentience.

It seems that each time we try to find a criterium to justify abortion, we end up with something that could justify other homicides.
Which should tell us something.[/quote]

I am not convinced that pulling the plug on a permanently brain-wave-flat-lined person should be considered murder in all circumstances, or that it is morally or should be legally treated the same as gunning down your wife because you think she is cheating on you.

326

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Pat raised the point that how you “feel” about something doesn’t change what it is and the fact of “what it is” is important. At what point does a fetus become sentient (and I truly don’t know the answer to this)?. Before it becomes sentient–i.e. when it only has the potential to become sentient–it isn’t sentient. Is this an important distinction? I think it is.

I personally agree that a first-trimester or earlier baby is “alive,” but I am not convinced it is “sentient” and similarly situated to a sentient being even if it has the potential to become sentient in the future.[/quote]

Sentience can’t be a criterium here.
Or, more accurately, if it was a criterium, we should legalize the homicide of comatose and unconscious people too.
And maybe the homicide of sleeping people, depending on your definition of sentience.

It seems that each time we try to find a criterium to justify abortion, we end up with something that could justify other homicides.
Which should tell us something.[/quote]

I am not convinced that pulling the plug on a permanently brain-wave-flat-lined person should be considered murder in all circumstances, or that it is morally or should be legally treated the same as gunning down your wife because you think she is cheating on you.
[/quote]

Maybe.
But a fetus is not comparable to a permanently brain-wave-flat-lined person.
A fetus is more like a brain-wave-flat-lined person who will recover in a few weeks.
Except his/her brain-waves aren’t actually flat.

327

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Pat raised the point that how you “feel” about something doesn’t change what it is and the fact of “what it is” is important. At what point does a fetus become sentient (and I truly don’t know the answer to this)?. Before it becomes sentient–i.e. when it only has the potential to become sentient–it isn’t sentient. Is this an important distinction? I think it is.

I personally agree that a first-trimester or earlier baby is “alive,” but I am not convinced it is “sentient” and similarly situated to a sentient being even if it has the potential to become sentient in the future.[/quote]

Sentience can’t be a criterium here.
Or, more accurately, if it was a criterium, we should legalize the homicide of comatose and unconscious people too.
And maybe the homicide of sleeping people, depending on your definition of sentience.

It seems that each time we try to find a criterium to justify abortion, we end up with something that could justify other homicides.
Which should tell us something.[/quote]

I am not convinced that pulling the plug on a permanently brain-wave-flat-lined person should be considered murder in all circumstances, or that it is morally or should be legally treated the same as gunning down your wife because you think she is cheating on you.
[/quote]

Maybe.
But a fetus is not comparable to a permanently brain-wave-flat-lined person.
A fetus is more like a brain-wave-flat-lined person who will recover in a few weeks.
Except his/her brain-wave aren’t actually flat.

[/quote]

If you know, when does a fetus get brain waives at all? I seem to recall its at about 7 to 8 weeks.

328

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

I’m curious, what makes a “life” valuable to you? [/quote]

Honestly? Probably the mystery of it all. Its amazing durability, yet fragility at the same time. How one can change billions, over thousands of years.

How without the ability to acknowledge it this whole conversation would be moot.

Trimming parts doesn’t ruin the whole.

My brother-in-law is in a wheel chair. He lost the use of his legs a few years ago. Is he less alive than he was when he had use of his legs? Nope. He is still alive, he is still a good dude whom I like to be around.

Cutting my nails doesn’t reduce my life.

Who am I to determine worth? Particularly between one person and another?

I think life is valuable, I am in no position to determine its worth however.

Is it morally okay to say a CEO is worth more to society than a plumber or garbage man? Sure. Would you always be correct? I don’t think co.

If I could only save one, it wouldn’t matter whom I picked because I would hate myself for only being able to save one for the rest of my life either way.

I don’t like hypotheticals, but here, it wouldn’t matter to me who I picked. I would pick the one who was in the most imminent danger I guess. I don’t know really, I’ve never been in that situation before.

I think life trumps the sentient. Life causes those cells to divide, and the baby to grow into the infant that is born.

Who am I, or any human to say one life is more important than another and one should be terminated in order to appease the other?

These are philosophical questions, I understand that. But if abortion was limited to these type situations, due to people’s own volition, I would feel we were heading in the right direction. So not that I would be satisfied, but I would think that we were actually a little less of a barbarian tribe than we so desperately try and pretend we aren’t because iPhone and other irrelevant shit.

329

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

But if you value all life, how can you condone the ending of human life in the certain particular instances you do?]

[/quote]

because it is not the life of the child until viability . It’s life is at the will of the mother and not my decision
[/quote]

Please post a doctor or any sort of scientist paper that backs up this nonsense. So until week 20 is it magic fairy dust that causes the growth of the fetus if not life?

wtf?[/quote]

I’m curious, what makes a “life” valuable to you? I doubt the response is “all life is equally valuable” because your toenails and hair are technically alive and part of you and I’m assuming you don’t have a problem “killing” or “ending” life that is non-essential to the whole.

Does being sentient play a role with valuing life? If a baby is alive and will be born alive but brain-wave dead and non sentient is this “life” worth the same as a baby that would be born sentient and functional? Is it ok to terminate the life of a brain-dead baby? Is it morally ok to view one of these live beings as worth less than the other? I think it is, but I’d like to hear your thoughts.

How about, hypothetically, you are a fire-fighter going into a hospital that is burning and there is a person who is brain dead and on life support in the same room as a person who’s brain is functioning but is disabled. You can only save one of them. Which one do you pick? Is it morally acceptable to make a choice by valuing one of these lives more than the another? Is there any circumstance under which you save the brain-dead patient and feel like you made the right choice? I say no, you pick the non-brain-dead person every single time and feel like you made the right choice.

Pat raised the point that how you “feel” about something doesn’t change what it is and the fact of “what it is” is important. At what point does a fetus become sentient (and I truly don’t know the answer to this)?. Before it becomes sentient–i.e. when it only has the potential to become sentient–it isn’t sentient. Is this an important distinction? I think it is.

I personally agree that a first-trimester or earlier baby is “alive,” but I am not convinced it is “sentient” and similarly situated to a sentient being even if it has the potential to become sentient in the future. [/quote]

This is not quite true: one of the current criteria for the scientific definition of “alive” is to be an organism–a contiguous living system which directs its own processes (note this is independent of whether it retains nutrients from another life form or not). A second is the ability (genetically) to reproduce, whether or not that is possible due to mutation, maiming, or sexual immaturity (age).

By all these criteria a fetus is alive. I would suggest that beans is probably using shorthand for “human organismic life” when he says “all life”. But then I suspect you knew he was doing that as well.

330

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

But if you value all life, how can you condone the ending of human life in the certain particular instances you do?]

[/quote]

because it is not the life of the child until viability . It’s life is at the will of the mother and not my decision
[/quote]

Please post a doctor or any sort of scientist paper that backs up this nonsense. So until week 20 is it magic fairy dust that causes the growth of the fetus if not life?

wtf?[/quote]

I’m curious, what makes a “life” valuable to you? I doubt the response is “all life is equally valuable” because your toenails and hair are technically alive and part of you and I’m assuming you don’t have a problem “killing” or “ending” life that is non-essential to the whole.

Does being sentient play a role with valuing life? If a baby is alive and will be born alive but brain-wave dead and non sentient is this “life” worth the same as a baby that would be born sentient and functional? Is it ok to terminate the life of a brain-dead baby? Is it morally ok to view one of these live beings as worth less than the other? I think it is, but I’d like to hear your thoughts.

How about, hypothetically, you are a fire-fighter going into a hospital that is burning and there is a person who is brain dead and on life support in the same room as a person who’s brain is functioning but is disabled. You can only save one of them. Which one do you pick? Is it morally acceptable to make a choice by valuing one of these lives more than the another? Is there any circumstance under which you save the brain-dead patient and feel like you made the right choice? I say no, you pick the non-brain-dead person every single time and feel like you made the right choice.

Pat raised the point that how you “feel” about something doesn’t change what it is and the fact of “what it is” is important. At what point does a fetus become sentient (and I truly don’t know the answer to this)?. Before it becomes sentient–i.e. when it only has the potential to become sentient–it isn’t sentient. Is this an important distinction? I think it is.

I personally agree that a first-trimester or earlier baby is “alive,” but I am not convinced it is “sentient” and similarly situated to a sentient being even if it has the potential to become sentient in the future. [/quote]

This is not quite true: one of the current criteria for the scientific definition of “alive” is to be an organism–a contiguous living system which directs its own processes (note this is independent of whether it retains nutrients from another life form or not). A second is the ability (genetically) to reproduce, whether or not that is possible due to mutation, maiming, or sexual immaturity (age).

By all these criteria a fetus is alive. I would suggest that beans is probably using shorthand for “human organismic life” when he says “all life”. But then I suspect you knew he was doing that as well.[/quote]

I think this is an interesting post and, for the record, I wasn’t trying to be disingenuous. I’ll also spot you that a zygote is a “human organismic life.”

Two implicit propositions get tossed around alot in this debate: (1) all human life has the same value and life is the paramount value; and (2) “i’m not basing my argument on religious grounds.” I’m trying to explore these propositions–maybe as much for myself as anybody else because I’ll admit this issue has me conflicted–because I don’t think it is self evident that terminating a zygote is morally the same as terminating a sentient person or that a zygote should be entitled to be treated like a full fledged sentient person. Maybe it does, but I’m not sold.

In my mind, few on here would suggest that preventing a sperm from fertilizing an egg is a problem. Maybe I am wrong. But in any event, I don’t see that much difference from terminating the fertilized egg seconds after it gets fertilized as substantially different from just preventing the egg from being fertilized. Other than its an easy bright line to draw or for religious reasons, what is it that makes a two-cell zygote so special that it is deserves the rights of a full-fledged citizen?

331

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

But if you value all life, how can you condone the ending of human life in the certain particular instances you do?]

[/quote]

because it is not the life of the child until viability . It’s life is at the will of the mother and not my decision
[/quote]

Please post a doctor or any sort of scientist paper that backs up this nonsense. So until week 20 is it magic fairy dust that causes the growth of the fetus if not life?

wtf?[/quote]

I’m curious, what makes a “life” valuable to you? I doubt the response is “all life is equally valuable” because your toenails and hair are technically alive and part of you and I’m assuming you don’t have a problem “killing” or “ending” life that is non-essential to the whole.

Does being sentient play a role with valuing life? If a baby is alive and will be born alive but brain-wave dead and non sentient is this “life” worth the same as a baby that would be born sentient and functional? Is it ok to terminate the life of a brain-dead baby? Is it morally ok to view one of these live beings as worth less than the other? I think it is, but I’d like to hear your thoughts.

How about, hypothetically, you are a fire-fighter going into a hospital that is burning and there is a person who is brain dead and on life support in the same room as a person who’s brain is functioning but is disabled. You can only save one of them. Which one do you pick? Is it morally acceptable to make a choice by valuing one of these lives more than the another? Is there any circumstance under which you save the brain-dead patient and feel like you made the right choice? I say no, you pick the non-brain-dead person every single time and feel like you made the right choice.

Pat raised the point that how you “feel” about something doesn’t change what it is and the fact of “what it is” is important. At what point does a fetus become sentient (and I truly don’t know the answer to this)?. Before it becomes sentient–i.e. when it only has the potential to become sentient–it isn’t sentient. Is this an important distinction? I think it is.

I personally agree that a first-trimester or earlier baby is “alive,” but I am not convinced it is “sentient” and similarly situated to a sentient being even if it has the potential to become sentient in the future. [/quote]

This is not quite true: one of the current criteria for the scientific definition of “alive” is to be an organism–a contiguous living system which directs its own processes (note this is independent of whether it retains nutrients from another life form or not). A second is the ability (genetically) to reproduce, whether or not that is possible due to mutation, maiming, or sexual immaturity (age).

By all these criteria a fetus is alive. I would suggest that beans is probably using shorthand for “human organismic life” when he says “all life”. But then I suspect you knew he was doing that as well.[/quote]

I think this is an interesting post and, for the record, I wasn’t trying to be disingenuous. I’ll also spot you that a zygote is a “human organismic life.”

Two implicit propositions get tossed around alot in this debate: (1) all human life has the same value and life is the paramount value; and (2) “i’m not basing my argument on religious grounds.” I’m trying to explore these propositions–maybe as much for myself as anybody else because I’ll admit this issue has me conflicted–because I don’t think it is self evident that terminating a zygote is morally the same as terminating a sentient person or that a zygote should be entitled to be treated like a full fledged sentient person. Maybe it does, but I’m not sold.

In my mind, few on here would suggest that preventing a sperm from fertilizing an egg is a problem. Maybe I am wrong. But in any event, I don’t see that much difference from terminating the fertilized egg seconds after it gets fertilized as substantially different from just preventing the egg from being fertilized. Other than its an easy bright line to draw or for religious reasons, what is it that makes a two-cell zygote so special that it is deserves the rights of a full-fledged citizen?[/quote]

There are a number of points to be made, but since you say it is for your own enlightenment I would encourage you to take a serious look at the writings of one Dr. Robert P. George, professor emeritus and constitutional scholar at Princeton. Here’s a bit about his teaching style: http://www.princeton.edu/admission/whatsdistinctive/facultyprofiles/george/

I think, regardless of your stance, you would do well to read his writings. Here’s a brief chapter: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Content_store/Sample_chapter/1405115475/Cohen_sample%20chapter_Contemporary%20debates%20in%20applied%20ethics.pdf

hopefully that pdf link comes through. Otherwise all you have to do is to google his name with “abortion” and the first link should get you there. The article is called “the wrong of abortion”.

332

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

But if you value all life, how can you condone the ending of human life in the certain particular instances you do?]

[/quote]

because it is not the life of the child until viability . It’s life is at the will of the mother and not my decision
[/quote]

Please post a doctor or any sort of scientist paper that backs up this nonsense. So until week 20 is it magic fairy dust that causes the growth of the fetus if not life?

wtf?[/quote]

I’m curious, what makes a “life” valuable to you? I doubt the response is “all life is equally valuable” because your toenails and hair are technically alive and part of you and I’m assuming you don’t have a problem “killing” or “ending” life that is non-essential to the whole.

Does being sentient play a role with valuing life? If a baby is alive and will be born alive but brain-wave dead and non sentient is this “life” worth the same as a baby that would be born sentient and functional? Is it ok to terminate the life of a brain-dead baby? Is it morally ok to view one of these live beings as worth less than the other? I think it is, but I’d like to hear your thoughts.

How about, hypothetically, you are a fire-fighter going into a hospital that is burning and there is a person who is brain dead and on life support in the same room as a person who’s brain is functioning but is disabled. You can only save one of them. Which one do you pick? Is it morally acceptable to make a choice by valuing one of these lives more than the another? Is there any circumstance under which you save the brain-dead patient and feel like you made the right choice? I say no, you pick the non-brain-dead person every single time and feel like you made the right choice.

Pat raised the point that how you “feel” about something doesn’t change what it is and the fact of “what it is” is important. At what point does a fetus become sentient (and I truly don’t know the answer to this)?. Before it becomes sentient–i.e. when it only has the potential to become sentient–it isn’t sentient. Is this an important distinction? I think it is.

I personally agree that a first-trimester or earlier baby is “alive,” but I am not convinced it is “sentient” and similarly situated to a sentient being even if it has the potential to become sentient in the future. [/quote]

This is not quite true: one of the current criteria for the scientific definition of “alive” is to be an organism–a contiguous living system which directs its own processes (note this is independent of whether it retains nutrients from another life form or not). A second is the ability (genetically) to reproduce, whether or not that is possible due to mutation, maiming, or sexual immaturity (age).

By all these criteria a fetus is alive. I would suggest that beans is probably using shorthand for “human organismic life” when he says “all life”. But then I suspect you knew he was doing that as well.[/quote]

I think this is an interesting post and, for the record, I wasn’t trying to be disingenuous. I’ll also spot you that a zygote is a “human organismic life.”

Two implicit propositions get tossed around alot in this debate: (1) all human life has the same value and life is the paramount value; and (2) “i’m not basing my argument on religious grounds.” I’m trying to explore these propositions–maybe as much for myself as anybody else because I’ll admit this issue has me conflicted–because I don’t think it is self evident that terminating a zygote is morally the same as terminating a sentient person or that a zygote should be entitled to be treated like a full fledged sentient person. Maybe it does, but I’m not sold.

In my mind, few on here would suggest that preventing a sperm from fertilizing an egg is a problem. Maybe I am wrong. But in any event, I don’t see that much difference from terminating the fertilized egg seconds after it gets fertilized as substantially different from just preventing the egg from being fertilized. Other than its an easy bright line to draw or for religious reasons, what is it that makes a two-cell zygote so special that it is deserves the rights of a full-fledged citizen?[/quote]

There are a number of points to be made, but since you say it is for your own enlightenment I would encourage you to take a serious look at the writings of one Dr. Robert P. George, professor emeritus and constitutional scholar at Princeton. Here’s a bit about his teaching style: http://www.princeton.edu/admission/whatsdistinctive/facultyprofiles/george/

I think, regardless of your stance, you would do well to read his writings. Here’s a brief chapter: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Content_store/Sample_chapter/1405115475/Cohen_sample%20chapter_Contemporary%20debates%20in%20applied%20ethics.pdf

hopefully that pdf link comes through. Otherwise all you have to do is to google his name with “abortion” and the first link should get you there. The article is called “the wrong of abortion”.
[/quote]

Thanks. I’ll look through these.

333

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Offspring do provide benefit for their parents, but for the first several years (or decades in the case of humans) that benefit is largely immaterial (emotional and spiritual benefits more than contributing to the survival of the family), aside from the obvious (and appropriate to your profession) tax advantages. [/quote]

I take exception to the emotional and spiritual benefits being termed immaterial here. I’ve just seen too much positive come from babies entering into people’s lives to call something that profound and life changing “immaterial”.

I’d also argue that a family with a pregnant female or infant/toddler will likely take more care in ensure its survival than a family of just a coupling of adults… As in the desire to see the child grow up healthily and happy will lead the parents to make choices and partake in activities that positively effect their survival and well being. Mommy might sell her street bike and by a safer care, daddy might not volunteer for the underwater welding job on the oil rig and take the safer job in the factory down the street, etc…

I think you discount the less obvious and less physical benefits children bring to their parents erroneously to favor simple observations like “mom breast feeds the child, so it is a parasite.”

[/quote]

I’ve also seen it work the exact opposite. I have a very good female friend who got pregnant when we were both 16 (not by me!). Her mother was very religious and insisted that she keep the child. She had to drop out of school. She was completely dependant upon her mother, who at this point was conducting what amounted to full blown psychological warfafe on her, using guilt, shame, religion and everything she could to make my friend feel like a piece of shit for getting knocked up.

When the child was born I was there in the room. A healthy baby girl. My friend got on WIC and public assistance. She bounced from one unstable home to another. From one unstable relationship to another. The daughter was sexually molested. Later she was raped. Both of them were incapable of processing their emotions very well - it’s was the classic case of children raising children. They never evolved or amounted to shit. My friend ended up getting strung out on crack for a few years and losing custody of the daughter, who was given to the grandmother. She got raped again.

The child is now 22 and just called me the other day asking for money. She’s a slut living in South Baltimore, doesn’t have a car or a job and is on public assistance. She has NO marketable skills and will most likely be a burden to the state for the rest of her shallow life. I find it to be a small miracle that she hasn’t gotten knocked up yet, although I suspect she has and has chosen to get abortions and not tell anyone. At least she got that right.

The mother is 39 now, past her prime and is on public assistance as well because she hurt her back a few years ago. Although I suspect she just “hurt her back” to get a disability check.

The decision to have that child RUINED the lives of both the mother and the child. Neither are happy. Neither contribute anything except sucking up our taxpayer resources and making stupid posts on facebook with their smart phones that they somehow can afford, even though they cant afford food.

If my friend had an abortion when she was 16, her life would have been completely different.

This isn’t some “fictional story”, it is an actual situation of someone I know very well. I will always be in favor of abortion when the person having the child is unable to adequately care for it. It creates TWO fucked up lives that eventually become a burden to the state and the planet.

With the population explosion we have experienced in the last 300 years, we don’t have the luxury of things like “morality”. We are on an unsustainable path that will ultimately lead to the destruction of the human race.

As I said before, I would NEVER allow MY offspring to be aborted. But I would also not in good concience condemn someone to the life of my friend because of MY beliefs. In my opinion THAT is immoral.

334

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Offspring do provide benefit for their parents, but for the first several years (or decades in the case of humans) that benefit is largely immaterial (emotional and spiritual benefits more than contributing to the survival of the family), aside from the obvious (and appropriate to your profession) tax advantages. [/quote]

I take exception to the emotional and spiritual benefits being termed immaterial here. I’ve just seen too much positive come from babies entering into people’s lives to call something that profound and life changing “immaterial”.

I’d also argue that a family with a pregnant female or infant/toddler will likely take more care in ensure its survival than a family of just a coupling of adults… As in the desire to see the child grow up healthily and happy will lead the parents to make choices and partake in activities that positively effect their survival and well being. Mommy might sell her street bike and by a safer care, daddy might not volunteer for the underwater welding job on the oil rig and take the safer job in the factory down the street, etc…

I think you discount the less obvious and less physical benefits children bring to their parents erroneously to favor simple observations like “mom breast feeds the child, so it is a parasite.”

[/quote]

I’ve also seen it work the exact opposite. I have a very good female friend who got pregnant when we were both 16 (not by me!). Her mother was very religious and insisted that she keep the child. She had to drop out of school. She was completely dependant upon her mother, who at this point was conducting what amounted to full blown psychological warfafe on her, using guilt, shame, religion and everything she could to make my friend feel like a piece of shit for getting knocked up.

When the child was born I was there in the room. A healthy baby girl. My friend got on WIC and public assistance. She bounced from one unstable home to another. From one unstable relationship to another. The daughter was sexually molested. Later she was raped. Both of them were incapable of processing their emotions very well - it’s was the classic case of children raising children. They never evolved or amounted to shit. My friend ended up getting strung out on crack for a few years and losing custody of the daughter, who was given to the grandmother. She got raped again.

The child is now 22 and just called me the other day asking for money. She’s a slut living in South Baltimore, doesn’t have a car or a job and is on public assistance. She has NO marketable skills and will most likely be a burden to the state for the rest of her shallow life. I find it to be a small miracle that she hasn’t gotten knocked up yet, although I suspect she has and has chosen to get abortions and not tell anyone. At least she got that right.

The mother is 39 now, past her prime and is on public assistance as well because she hurt her back a few years ago. Although I suspect she just “hurt her back” to get a disability check.

The decision to have that child RUINED the lives of both the mother and the child. Neither are happy. Neither contribute anything except sucking up our taxpayer resources and making stupid posts on facebook with their smart phones that they somehow can afford, even though they cant afford food.

If my friend had an abortion when she was 16, her life would have been completely different.

This isn’t some “fictional story”, it is an actual situation of someone I know very well. I will always be in favor of abortion when the person having the child is unable to adequately care for it. It creates TWO fucked up lives that eventually become a burden to the state and the planet.

With the population explosion we have experienced in the last 300 years, we don’t have the luxury of things like “morality”. We are on an unsustainable path that will ultimately lead to the destruction of the human race.

As I said before, I would NEVER allow MY offspring to be aborted. But I would also not in good concience condemn someone to the life of my friend because of MY beliefs. In my opinion THAT is immoral. [/quote]

If only the Baltimore Planned Parenthood clinics had all closed down when your friend was 16, the probability of her getting pregnant would have dropped precipitously.

Isn’t that the implication of this thread?

335

Aragorn, that was a pretty good read. Thanks.

336

[quote]jjackrash wrote:
I doubt the response is “all life is equally valuable” because your toenails and hair are technically alive and part of you and I’m assuming you don’t have a problem “killing” or “ending” life that is non-essential to the whole.[/quote]

For the record, toenails and hair are not technically alive.

Hair follicles and toenail cuticles are, but the hair and nails themselves are dead tissue.

337

“Children are Parasites”…don’t distance yourself from that quote so much, you were a ‘‘parasite’’ as well once.
People just have a generally negative connotation to that word ‘‘parasite’’.

We ALL were ‘‘parasites’’, but it wasn’t our fault that we were, even if one takes that word or concept ‘‘parasite’’ negatively in smallest, most innocent sense of the word possible.

The word ‘‘Parasite’’ even sounds creepy…insect-like…like a Leech, or a Tick or something,
there’s got to be a ‘softer’ synonym for that word that doesn’t sound like a theme from
an Old School David Cronenberg horror film.

338

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Aragorn, that was a pretty good read. Thanks. [/quote]

Glad to help! That man is a very, very sharp mind. Doesn’t mean you need to agree with the position, but the dude has legitimate resume and chops–he should be read (on many issues, not just this one) because I think people need to hear well argued points regardless of opinion. I know if I am around somebody who says “he’s an idiot” by way of repsonse to disagreement with George that I need never again concern myself with paying attention to what they think :P.

Incidentally, this guy is a REAL “Constitutional scholar”…our commander in chief would probably have done well to take his classes. Ok, got my dig in I’m disappearing again lol

339

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Aragorn, that was a pretty good read. Thanks. [/quote]

Glad to help! That man is a very, very sharp mind. Doesn’t mean you need to agree with the position, but the dude has legitimate resume and chops–he should be read (on many issues, not just this one) because I think people need to hear well argued points regardless of opinion. I know if I am around somebody who says “he’s an idiot” by way of repsonse to disagreement with George that I need never again concern myself with paying attention to what they think :P.

Incidentally, this guy is a REAL “Constitutional scholar”…our commander in chief would probably have done well to take his classes. Ok, got my dig in I’m disappearing again lol[/quote]

For the record I’m not trying to bait and I am conflicted, although this isn’t one of my big issues so I’m not very well read on the subject. So I appreciate the link.

I was googling around for a rebuttal and came across this link.

I feel like it kind of sums up my feelings. On an emotional level and maybe its also on a biological or evolutionary level I just don’t get that worked up over, for example, the morning after pill. But as the baby develops and starts to look like a person I really start to have a problem. Maybe that’s not logically consistent but its how I feel so, again, thanks for the link.

340

[quote]jjackrash wrote:
For the record I’m not trying to bait and I am conflicted[/quote]

Aww… you shoulda left it as “I’m not trying to bate”. Much funnier.